rankbadyin

There is no fool like an old fool. you win that one by some distance of residence.

What sort of best interests would they be, from a man who has no intention of investing or devoting any time to the advancement of the club and isn't a supporter of the club.

It is far from good it is the sort of abject nonsense that destroys sensible debate and puts good posters off of posting.

That is because he isn't a Rangers fan.

You won't mind posting it again then, bit hard for something that doesn't exist.

Doesn't seem to have anywhere near enough clout to by Rangers.

Your assertions are frankly nonsense, Murray was no more than a water carrier at Deutsche Bank, when asked to stand on his own two feet he failed spectacularly. At Martin Currie fund managers he failed to hit his target by an astonishing 90% raising £20 million as opposed to the required £200 million, his services were dispensed with the one and only time he was ever asked to step up to the plate.

The bank reduced it.

Strangely the reqisitioners appear to be proposing Easdale.

Rangers International Football Club plc ("Rangers", the "Company" or "Club") Further to requisition of general meeting Further to the announcement on 2 September 2013, the Company confirms that the Board's discussions have been continuing with representatives of the group who requisitioned (together the "Requisitioners") a general meeting to consider the proposed resolutions ("Requisition") detailed in the announcement on 2 August 2013 ("General Meeting"). Following recent press speculation, the Company can confirm that the Requisitioners have put forward a proposal to withdraw the Requisition based on their request for the appointment of four additional non executive directors, being John McClelland, a former Chairman of Rangers Football Club, Sandy Easdale, an existing shareholder of the Company, Paul Murray, a former director of Rangers Football Club and Frank Blin, formally of PwC. As part of the proposal, the Requisitioners have also confirmed that, subject to the above, they are not seeking to remove any of the current Directors. The Company confirms that discussions are continuing with the Requisitioners with regard to reaching an agreement for the withdrawal of the Requisition. The Board considers that any decision on any proposal for the withdrawal of the Requisition would be subject to the provision by the Requisitioners of a vote of confidence and continued support for the current Directors and to all necessary regulatory approvals. Further announcements will be made as appropriate.

I take it you believe the parties in question do have shares.

Don't see anyone correcting McMurdo.

The bank didn't ask they enforced prudence and reduced their exposure, not the answer you are probably looking for but there you have it, the board were a board in name only.

The bank did.

The board won nothing and reduced nothing.

There probably is something valid in BM's statement, there was a thread asking the same question on FF needless to say it disappeared which would suggest to me it is something FF kommondants do not wish discussed.

Interesting on the shares front. Civil War Stalemate The Ibrox Civil War may very well end in stalemate as both sides have similar levels of support and neither side will want it to go to a vote. This means that a deal will likely be brokered. This deal would likely see Paul Murray and Frank Blin join the board along with Sandy Easdale and see John McClelland brought back as Chairman. No-one would leave. My understanding is that, despite intense searching, no shares at all can be found on the register belonging to Blin, Murray or Jim McColl. This does not negate the requisition but means that it will now be led by Artemis. Nonetheless a compromise is very likely and that means the rebels will get their place men on the board, only without the departures of Craig Mather and Brian Stockbridge. That outcome may not be the worst thing ever provided all the board members pull together and start to fight for Rangers instead of over Rangers. No-one would bet against the dirty tricks and smearing continuing, however, and the impasse may only delay a bloodbath. That bloodbath is not what many fans want, although unfortunately there is a faction in the Gers support which seems intent on causing maximum disruption to the club. There are all kinds of propaganda leaflets and such doing the rounds, all with one purpose – to destabilise the club and derail Rangers’ progress. There is also what is nothing short of a crusade against the man tasked with fighting the club’s corner against negative press and outright propaganda – Jack Irvine of Media House. This crusade – which is actually more of a witch hunt – is being carried out with far more fervour by some than they ever display against real enemies of Rangers. One blogger today even attacked Jack Irvine for speaking disparagingly of Daily Record Editor Allan Rennie. It’s a bad day when you try to score points by defending Allan Rennie! Especially when said blogger has himself gone to town many times on Rennie in his own blog! Another criticism of Jack Irvine concerns his giving an interview to Scotzine. It is Jack Irvine’s job to deal with and speak to media, even media considered hostile to Rangers. You might even say ESPECIALLY media hostile to Rangers. I have written articles myself for Scotzine from a bluenose perspective. Like other media, it is a vehicle to get one’s point of view across. The simple truth is that you can only work with the media that is available. If that media is hostile to Rangers, you have to work with it. With some justification bluenoses can point to certain media outlets and say they are anti-Rangers but the approach should not be to stick your head in the sand and ignore the media. People should remember that those who are trying to destabilise the club have no problems using media outlets considered unfriendly to Rangers. Jack Irvine is not answerable to Rangers fans. They don’t employ him. He IS accountable to the people paying his retainer and that is the Rangers board. Who knows? Maybe Jack’s next interview will be with the Celtic View. If it is, he should be commended, not pilloried. After all, light is most effective when it shines in a dark place… The tragic aspect of Jack Irvine being retained to protect the Rangers board from a propaganda campaign is that most of that propaganda comes from a certain element in the Rangers fanbase who are hellbent on bringing maximum disruption to the club. This element seeks power and are ruthless in their pursuit of it. Sad days indeed, for those who love the famous Glasgow Rangers.

It appears to be the standard modus operandi that those who allegedly have money to burn want Rangers at a no risk profit guaranteed price.

I was thinking more along the lines of King having a sympathetic board in place who would be the avenue for the issue King speaks of.

King's approach is the nearest to arbitrage you will find.

Sevco 5088 is on page 68 of the IPO document.

As you wish.

The clubs history is your friend, it was covered extensively yesterday and the myth of King was laid to rest.

He has not.

It appears that King doesn't understand the mechanics of a rights issue and who would do the issuing.